Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA ACTING BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ISRAEL PACKEL v. J. M. SIGAFOOSE (01/28/74)

decided: January 28, 1974.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ACTING BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ISRAEL PACKEL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. M. SIGAFOOSE, DEFENDANT. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ACTING BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ISRAEL PACKEL, PLAINTIFF, V. BRIAN D. EHRHART, DEFENDANT. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ACTING BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ISRAEL PACKEL, PLAINTIFF, V. JOHN N. PIKULIN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A PIKULIN CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, DEFENDANT



Original jurisdiction in cases of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Acting By Attorney General Israel Packel v. J. M. Sigafoose; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Acting By Attorney General Israel Packel v. Brian D. Ehrhart; and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Acting By Attorney General Israel Packel v. John N. Pikulin, Individually, and d/b/a Pikulin Chiropractic Center.

COUNSEL

Joel Weisberg, Deputy Attorney General, with him George M. Kashi, Assistant Attorney General, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for plaintiff.

John Killian, with him Robert W. Barton and Killian & Gephart, for defendants.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 566]

On March 21, 1973, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed separate complaints against three individual chiropractors, alleging violations of the provisions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection

[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 567]

Law.*fn1 The complaints asserted that the defendants had published advertisements in newspapers of general circulation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that disparaged the services of medical doctors and other nonchiropractic healing professionals and which were false or misleading and constituted deceptive acts or practices.

After hearing, this Court entered a preliminary injunction which enjoined the defendants from engaging further in certain of the practices of which the Commonwealth complained. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court from the issuance of our injunction.

The defendants timely prepared and filed their brief with the Supreme Court. On or about the date that the Commonwealth's brief was required to be filed, the defendants, in accord with Supreme Court Rule 20, discontinued their appeal.

The Commonwealth has filed a Bill of Costs with this Court, seeking to have us assess as costs to be paid by the defendants the amount paid for printing the Commonwealth's brief which it would have filed with the Supreme Court if the defendants' appeal had not been discontinued.

Supreme Court Rule 20 reads as follows:

"A. An appellant may discontinue an appeal as to all appellees as of course at any time prior to argument or thereafter upon approval of this Court. A discontinuance shall be subject to payment of all of the Prothonotary's costs and the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, order payment of all or part of appellee's costs. A discontinuance may not be entered by appellant as to less than all appellees except from agreement of all ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.